The Guilt Or Trespass Offering - 'asam (Leviticus 5:1-11).
The essence of the Guilt Offering is that it appears to be in respect of fixed types of sins which make the person guilty in the eyes of others who may have suffered because of their failures, or guilty in the eyes of the sanctuary. In both cases recompense is usually needed. But it is not a case here of either a purification for sin offering or a guilt offering. This Guilt Offering is also a purification for sin offering, in one case also combined with a whole burnt offering.
This final offering in this whole section from Leviticus 4:1 to Leviticus 5:11 is with respect to very specific offences committed in ignorance; 1) failing to give witness in official courts under adjuration, 2) the touching of what is unclean because its uncleanness results from death, or because it is the uncleanness of Man 1:3) or the making of a rash oath by a man when not in possession of his full senses (and therefore presumably drunk) which he cannot keep. They are grave matters, but ameliorated in the last two cases by the doing of them in ignorance. Yet nevertheless they have brought impurity on Israel and must be publicly confessed and atoned for.
It should be noted that this is the first mention of public confession of sin, and the confession is clearly seen as an important part of the process of making the offering. These are sins that have directly affected others. They have thus made the perpetrators guilty, not only before God, but before each other.
The Sins For Which This Guilt Offering Is Required (Leviticus 5:1-4).
‘ And if any one sin, in that he hears the voice of adjuration, he being a witness, whether he has seen or known, if he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.'
The voice of adjuration here meant a witness being put under a charge by the courts as to whether they had heard or seen anything with regard to the case in hand, with the indication that they must speak the truth under pain of blasphemy. Here the person has not lied. They have simply failed to declare the truth. But in a position like this, silence is a sin. Once it is known, they will bear as their punishment whatever the courts decide (bear their iniquity), but they are also guilty before God and require atonement, and must make public confession. They have sinned against both man and God. This is in order to bring out the seriousness of the offence. In this case silence is not golden. It is an offence against God and His justice. Unless true men are willing to assist the courts and see justice done, justice will be continually perverted. See Proverbs 29:24.
‘Or if any one touch any unclean thing, whether it be the carcase of an unclean beast, or the carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and it be hidden from him, and he be unclean, then he shall be guilty.'
In this case the person has unknowingly touched something that was dead, either the carcase of a wild animal, or of a domestic animal, or of a small creature. He or she had not realised it, possibly through carelessness, but they have been rendered unclean by it. Yet because they did not realise it or think about it they have not undergone ‘cleansing', and may well even have approached the sanctuary, entering the court of the tabernacle, while unclean. Once they know of it they must confess it and seek purification and atonement. This could especially come about through picking up a bone without realising what it was, or something similar. Or it may have happened while out hunting or fighting and have been forgotten for a while. Later all contact with death is seen as unclean, but this is the early foundation teaching concerning this.
The avoidance of dead animals was a sensible precaution for they may have died of some disease, or have been infected by carrion. The only safe way was not to touch them but to leave them to the scavengers. ‘Unclean' wild animals would include the camel, the coney, the hare, and the swine (Leviticus 11:2-3), ‘unclean' domestic animals would include the horse and especially the ass (Leviticus 11:26-28). For unclean creeping things see Leviticus 11:29-31. Their dead carcases were not to be touched. The idea of clean and unclean animals went back as far as Noah (Genesis 7:2) where it was seemingly in regard to animals that could be offered as offerings to God. This law would later be expanded in some detail. By being made a religious ordinance that came between man and God it ensured that it was mainly observed.
For it was not only a sensible precaution, it was a command of Yahweh. The dead of these creatures must be left to Him. By coming in physical contact with the carcase of these unclean creatures and not taking action to obtain the appropriate cleansing they have sinned against God either through carelessness or ignorance. It is therefore necessary to seek forgiveness.
‘Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatever his uncleanness be wherewith he is unclean, and it be hidden from him; when he knows of it, then he shall be guilty.'
In this case the person has touched man's uncleanness in one way or another. This could include among other things touching their grave, or a man's waste left in the wilderness, or a menstruating woman. The first could occur where he learned afterwards that it was a grave, the second if he discovered it on his clothes or his skin on returning from the field or the wilderness, and the third could happen anywhere.
In both of these last two examples of ‘uncleanness' in Leviticus 5:2-3 the point is that they have only discovered it too late to go through the process of ritual cleansing. Thus they have mixed freely with others and may even have gone to the tabernacle.
‘Or if any one swear rashly with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatever it be that a man shall utter rashly with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knows of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these things.'
“To do evil or to do good” is a phrase meaning ‘to do anything over a wide range of things' looking from one extreme to the other, the two opposites signalling the bounds not the content. Clearly an oath to do evil would not be binding, even though the swearing of it would be a sin in itself. The swearing rashly and not knowing about it must suggest that the person was under the influence of alcohol. The point, of course, is that he has not fulfilled his vow because he has forgotten it, and then learns it from someone and finds that it is beyond him, or is something that he feels he cannot do. The purpose here is to bring out the seriousness of a vow. It cannot just be dismissed, even when made in a drunken state. It must be publicly confessed, and atoned for.